Acquired apathy=acquiesced agency
Captives r not freed
Widows & children
r not loved
Strangers r not protected
w/o our intention & attention
(A Pres-bit|@wpgpres)
I had not realised that I was writing a blog trilogy – The Doing & Canadian Jesus – until it was pointed out to me that the last two were connected … at least thematically. With that connexion named – for which I am most grateful (It really is an amazing gift to share these blogs and to be able to interact, be challenged and share in a manner that is both respectful, but which often blows my mind) – it became clear that though they all stand alone, they have had a trajectory toward me naming a binary for myself: politics vs. political.
For readers of A Deacon’s Musing, it is likely not a surprise that I really do (most often) believe in a both/and world. In other words, a life lens in which paradox can co-exist. And this blog – on its surface – likely maintains that. I have also realised that – for me personally – I have actually discovered an either/or.
Elections Canada
I have the gift to partake, read and learn from a group of Brothers & Sisters who call themselves Outlaw Preachers. Much of their context is VERY different than my Canadian denominational experience, yet their theology of embracing diversity and proudly evangelising both humbles me, inspires me and sometimes … well I get lost! But … and since I am tending toward an either/or, I’ll also embrace the ‘b’ conjunction … I am most struck by the comfort (I hear from their stories and blogs) of how politics and being political intermingle. I am inspired and also wary when one’s political action, as inspired by faith, can become/seem to be coopted by the instruments of politics. And I wonder whether the two can ever truly be balanced? I wonder if, at some point, engaging in our human instruments of politics lead to compromise? And, if so, it seems that must mean compromise of our values of faith …
Now I am not getting all judgemental or sanctimonious – I am just realising something for myself. I would never deny I am political:
- My lens of faith forces me to name truths to (my own) power (even when uncomfortable);
- My lens of faith forces me to wrestle with (my) privilege; and,
- My lens of faith forces me to make choices to walk in solidarity in the realities of the many oppressions that have and do indoctrinate us to harm not just one another, but ourselves.
Political Machine
I cannot deny that my political nature is grounded in a faith that demands of me to be an active agent in a world lulled by acquired apathy to just get by. We are meant to shine and my faith inspires me to interact in a human world: hence being political …
The either/or – again for me – is what I realise is a temptation: politics. The illusory nature of human politics – governance of the many – is dangerous for me:
- I can anticipate the lulls of whispers to let that go for the greater good;
- I can anticipate having to choose which line in the sand is the line and then let the borders get … soft?
It’s my Achilles’ Heel and I name that into the blogosphere … if for no other reason than to give voice to a temptation that is always present: bringing my political faith centred self into the mechanics of human ideological politics. I just do not think I stand a chance …
The communal nature of a blog – for me – is that it is about the dialogue, not the pontificating. The learning – for me – is most certainly one of the gifts that I derive each time I send one of these missives in to the cyber realm! So …I am not sure what this confessional moment is about except again to ask you – the Reader – some question, which I suspect might mutually help us both individual and in our shared journey on spaceship earth ….
Richard I too struggle with this. I find myself in the predicament of not being able to support any political party wholeheartedly. I want social reform in some areas but I fear that the governmental beaurocracies are the last ones that should be in charge of them. How much is personal responsibility as opposed to governmental mandate. Empowering government to do good also empowers it to abuse, and limit the rights we fought so hard to gain. It is, my friend, a conundrum indeed.
Hi Robert – I found your parallel of of personal responsibility and government mandate very helpful. It also helps me remember that for the early church they just cared for one another and those in their midst without the tension of privilege that we now enjoy. Hope that makes sense and thanks for helping me further muse!
I just wanted to say that I don’t just read RMT’s blog here, but I also like to see what others think. …And I always consider it better to hear a dissenting view when possible. Richard and I are pretty much on the opposite ends in our political thinking but I trust his integrity, which is more important than political agreement.
I don’t mind mixing religion and politics. I *do* consider it contemptible when people say that Jesus would have been a ‘socialist’ or argued for ‘higher taxes.’ Overwhelmingly, it seems to me that Jesus was concerned with individual action, not state activity. When folks, many of whom give less of their time, talent, and treasure than I do, act as if a socialist outlook is superior, I actually tend to go from friendly to guarded. I will never think that I’m a better person for giving to the government. Charity, while not a means to buy my way into heaven, is noble. Caesar wresting my coin from my hands doesn’t make me noble. What you give freely is much more important than what the state imposes upon you.
Thanks Daniel,
I appreciate the framing of the individual vs. the state. I – as you know -= likely tend toward the latter in my politics, but I also realise that I think you have hit on something that I have not fully explored. The individual (even as a community) in Jesus’ ministry critiqued the state, but did not concern itself with being part of it. Does that make sense? Thanks as usual for your thoughtfulness and challenge!
That’s actually an interesting idea. I’ve always thought that Jesus promoted individual action, which I think is clear from the gospels, but maybe there’s more than I understood. After all, the individual in any community is still part of it. The state provides a face for the community, so calls to individual action in the community might also include state participation. After all, if the state is the face of the community and individuals comprise the community, at some level the state and the individual must live in the same house. Hmmmm, food for thought, my mentat friend. This is why I like your blogs. It forces me to look at things from a variety of angles.
Hi Daniel,
Once again – thanks for taking the time to reflect with me! My new or continuing trajectory after reading your thoughts is the clear tension when there are various communities that comprise the ‘state.’ For the community that followed Jesus – sometimes called the Early Church – they clearly were not part of the state and the individuals therein cared for one another. I wonder – then – what does that say to us in respect ot politics and our care for one another? To whom do we owe allegiance? How do we walk that tension in what some call the new post-Christian context? Ah, always exciting to muse with you!
Daniel, I can pretty much agree with you. I have always seen myself as conservative politically, and liberal personally. I’ve always thought it was better to give $100 to a shelter than to give it to the government and have about 10 cents actually make it there. Richards writings really strike a chord with me, and I dont really think it matters much that he may differ from me politically. Generally I am much more interested in what a person does than what he says or even what he believes.
“the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works sake.”